Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ridley

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ridley

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any significant coverage by secondary reliable sources for WP:GNG (the article in The Independent was written by him and therefore primary), nor evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Note that being a FRAS is not in the same line as WP:NACADEMIC point 3 (particularly since they began taking student fellows). — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Mostly as being a Fellow of the RAS. My understanding is that this did count for rather more at one time, before the somewhat mercenary appearance it has now. I've heard his name mostly in relation to celadon glazes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but its reliability as being "highly selective" is no longer there so it cannot be used alone for notability now. However, if someone received it when it did mean more in the past, there are probably other indicators of notability (such as the WP:NAUTHOR discussion in the other comments). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR, as multiple reviews of The Art of World Religions — Buddhism and The Megalithic Art of the Maltese Islands have been found and added to the article, as well as reviews of his other books (not that the reviews are always very complimentary, as David Eppstein noted in an edit summary). One review states that he was also a fellow of two other societies, so I have added that info as well. He may, on that basis, meet WP:NACADEMIC#3, though it would be good to have other evidence that he is/was a fellow of those societies. I found a few other sources which I haven't added, one saying that he was curator of Weymouth and Portland Museums in 1982 [1]; one a scan of an excavation report on The Iron Age Settlement, East Cliff, Bournemouth [2]; he was co-author of Bournemouth Then and Now [3]; and an article in the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletter #28 (possibly 1991?) about two strange exhibitions in Bournemouth put on by a Dr Michael Ridley ... [4]. I haven't found any information on where Ridley studied, however, which would be useful information for the bio of a scholar. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Four published reviews for two different books (as listed now in the article) meets my minimum threshold for this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments on meeting WP:NAUTHOR. Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.